1. Concept Mapping as a Research Tool to Evaluate Teacher Candidates Conceptual Understanding of Special Education Gliset Colon, Buffalo Public Schools Sarah Howorth, Mercyhurst University Riza Ozdemir, Doctoral Scholar UB Sharon Raimondi, University at Buffalo CEC Teacher Education Division Tempe, AZ 11/5/15

2. While you are waiting Create a concept map that represents your knowledge on special education – respond to the prompt: What do you know about special education?

3. Agenda Create a concept map Briefly discuss need Share literature Discuss our project Share research findings Provide recommendations

4. Need An alternate to traditional measurement – tests, quizzes A way to measure higher level conceptual knowledge Concept maps are one alternative

5. Research Questions What is the conceptual knowledge of preservice teacher educators regarding special education? What are the effects of a 3 credit mandated course on the conceptual knowledge of special education held by preservice teacher educators?

6. 6 Participants Individuals seeking initial teacher certification Undergraduate preservice teachers N=? Graduate preservice teachers N=? Does not include individuals seeking special education certification This incudes: Early childhood Childhood Secondary – Math, History, English, ELL content Librarians

7. Demographics GenderTotal MF Undergrad189 Graduate51015 Total61824 Undergraduate ~ Education Minor Graduates ~ Seeking Teacher Cert Librarians Early Childhood Childhood Music Secondary English Social Studies Age Range: 22-28

8. 8 Setting Research 1 Institution Located in Suburbs of Large Urban City 3 sections of Mandated Course FormatTotal N Participants% 1 On-line11546% 1 On-line16531% 1 Face-to-Face171482% Total442455%

9. Instructors 1 Full Professor, 40 years of experience 3 Doctoral Scholars 1 section, face-to-face ~ co-taught (doctoral scholar, advisor)

10. Competencies – Mandated Course 1.Categories of disabilities 2.Identification and remediation of disabilities 3.The special education process, State/Federal special education laws/regulations, and Response to Intervention (RTI) 4.Individualizing instruction (IEP, Instructional models) 5.Applying positive behavioral supports and interventions to address student and classroom management needs (PBIS) 6.Effective practice for planning and designing co-teaching and collaboration with peers

11. Methodology Pre-Post Design Instrument ~ Concept Maps Measured Quantitative Qualitative

12. Quality Scoring Rubric 0Zero or one node; represents no development of concept 1Represents a novice/beginning level of development of concept 2Represents an emerging level of development of concept 3Represents a great deal of development of concept 4Represents an expert level of development of concept Miller et al., 2009

13. Quality Scoring Decision Rules 0 May have a few technical words/terms but lacks logical organization/linking of nodes 1 Some terminology terms and some logical organization; difference between I and 2 is the breadth of concepts on three or more of the major components to reach level 2 2 Demonstrate some professional/technical terminology with three or more major concept components 3 Level 3 should provide more development than Level 2, evidenced through terminology, major concepts, and organization. 4 The concepts should be developed relative to the cases used in course; conceptual match Miller et al., 2009

14. Sample Map – Quality 1

15. Sample Map – Quality 2

16. Sample Map – Quality 3

17. Sample Map – Quality 4

18. Quantitative Scoring Nodes are operationally defined as the number of unique concepts or circles with words. The term level refers to the depth or number of connected node levels emanating out from the center node. Links are the number of connections or links produced between the nodes or concepts. Source??

19. Examples – Nodes

20. Examples – Levels

21. Example - Links

22. Methods Paired t-test was used to see how the mandated course affects the conceptual knowledge of special education ANCOVA was used to analyze the gender/classroom type/school status differences on conceptual knowledge.

23. Findings There is a strong evidence that the course, on average increased quality of concept maps 1.25 points t(23)=7.12, p<.05 Nodes 27.4 points t(23)=5.35, p<.05 Levels 1.125 points t(23)=2.87, p<.05 Links 27.7 points t(23)=5.43, p<.05 Total score 56.2 points t(23)=5.41, p<.05 The conceptual knowledge of preservice teachers did not differ based on gender, classroom type and school status (p>.05)

24. Lessons Learned Pre-service general educators are unfamiliar with concept maps Software does not work with Chrome books The training process of teachers takes more time than thought Pre-service teachers are not used to open ended assignments (e.g., need for perfection)

25. Recommendations More specific training regarding components of a concept map Training regarding distinction between nodes, levels, and linking words Training regarding directional arrows Select software carefully Encourage students to use color coding for levels Enlarge maps prior to scoring Hang in there!

26. Reference Miller, K. J., Koury, K. A., Fitzgerald, G. E., Hollingsead, C., Mitchem, K. J., Hui-Hsien, T., & Park, M. K., (2009). Concept mapping as a research tool to evaluate conceptual change related to instructional methods. Teacher Education & Special Education, 32(4), 365-378, DOI: 10.1177/0888406409346149

27. Reference Croasdell, D. T., Freeman, L. A., & Urbaczewski, (2003). Concept maps for teaching and assessment. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 396-405. Daley, B. J., Shaw, C. R., Balistrieri, T., Glasenapp, K., & Piacentine, L. (1999). Concept maps: A strategy to teach and evaluate critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 38, 42-47. Huer, M. B. (2005). Using concept maps for educational based implementation of assis- tive technology: A culturally inclusive model for supervision in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(4), 51-61. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492. Nesbit, J., & Adesope, O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-440.

28. Questions?